MINV vs. FLJH

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

MINV (Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF) and FLJH (Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MINV is a Asia Pacific Equities fund actively managed by Matthews, while FLJH is a Japan Equities fund tracking the FTSE Japan RIC Capped Hedged to USD Net Tax Index. MINV is actively managed, while FLJH is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, MINV returned 27.02%/yr vs 27.57%/yr for FLJH. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MINV charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for FLJH.

Performance

MINV vs. FLJH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF (MINV) and Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MINV achieves a 39.36% return, which is significantly higher than FLJH's 20.27% return.

MINV

• 1D: -3.57%
• 1M: -10.35%
• 6M: 28.87%
• YTD: 39.36%
• 1Y: 55.89%
• 3Y*: 27.02%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FLJH

• 1D: -1.55%
• 1M: -0.89%
• 6M: 12.70%
• YTD: 20.27%
• 1Y: 44.73%
• 3Y*: 27.57%
• 5Y*: 21.36%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

MINV vs. FLJH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
MINV Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF	39.36%	30.85%	17.32%	-2.66%	-2.87%
FLJH Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF	20.27%	25.26%	25.89%	36.02%	0.87%

Correlation

The correlation between MINV and FLJH is 0.55, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.55
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.46
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 14, 2022	0.44

The correlation between MINV and FLJH shifts across timeframes, from 0.44 (all time) to 0.55 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

MINV vs. FLJH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MINV	FLJH
Technology	67.2%	19.4%
Industrials	19.2%	25.2%
Healthcare	4.6%	5.5%
Consumer Cyclical	3.7%	12.7%
Communication Services	2.3%	8.0%
Energy	1.7%	0.9%
Financial Services	1.4%	15.8%
Basic Materials	0.8%	4.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	4.0%
Real Estate	-	3.0%
Utilities	-	1.2%

Return for Risk

MINV vs. FLJH — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

MINV

MINV Risk / Return Rank: 71
MINV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
MINV Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
MINV Omega Ratio Rank: 70
MINV Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
MINV Martin Ratio Rank: 75

FLJH

FLJH Risk / Return Rank: 88
FLJH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
FLJH Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
FLJH Omega Ratio Rank: 87
FLJH Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
FLJH Martin Ratio Rank: 89

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

MINV vs. FLJH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF (MINV) and Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	MINV	FLJH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.82	2.33	-0.51
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.32	3.11	-0.79
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.42	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.27	4.16	-0.90
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.04	15.64	-4.60

MINV vs. FLJH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MINV Sharpe Ratio is 1.82, which is comparable to the FLJH Sharpe Ratio of 2.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MINV and FLJH, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

MINV vs. FLJH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MINV drawdown since its inception was -23.49%, smaller than the maximum FLJH drawdown of -31.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MINV and FLJH.

Drawdown Indicators

	MINV	FLJH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.49%	-31.51%	+8.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.19%	-10.80%	-6.39%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.82%	-20.39%	+0.57%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.39%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-17.19%	-4.01%	-13.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.06%	-5.27%	-2.79%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.08%	2.87%	+2.21%

Volatility

MINV vs. FLJH - Volatility Comparison

Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF (MINV) has a higher volatility of 14.93% compared to Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH) at 6.77%. This indicates that MINV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLJH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MINV	FLJH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.93%	6.77%	+8.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	27.71%	15.03%	+12.68%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	30.88%	19.26%	+11.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.18%	18.72%	+6.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.18%	19.88%	+5.30%

MINV vs. FLJH - Expense Ratio Comparison

MINV has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than FLJH's 0.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

MINV vs. FLJH - Dividend Comparison

MINV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.09%, less than FLJH's 2.50% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLJH Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF	2.50%	3.90%	5.06%	25.59%	26.67%	1.29%	0.00%	0.00%	5.92%	0.10%
MINV Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF	1.09%	1.51%	0.25%	1.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MINV and FLJH in my portfolio?

MINV and FLJH have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MINV or FLJH?

MINV has higher volatility (14.93%) compared to FLJH (6.77%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MINV dropped -23.49% vs FLJH's -31.51%.

Which ETF is better, MINV or FLJH?

On 3-year performance, FLJH leads with 27.57% vs 27.02% for MINV. On fees, FLJH is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, FLJH has been the lower-risk option at 6.77%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MINV or FLJH?

Over the 3-year period, FLJH has performed better with a 27.57% return vs 27.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MINV or FLJH?

FLJH is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for MINV.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MINV or FLJH?

FLJH has the higher dividend yield at 2.50%, compared with 1.09% for MINV.

What is the main difference between MINV and FLJH?

MINV is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while FLJH is Japan Equities. They also come from different issuers: Matthews and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for MINV and 0.09% for FLJH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLJH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.33 vs 1.82), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.